Vegetarian Discussion: Dear Jonathan Ball, You Were Right, I Was Wrong

Dear Jonathan Ball, You Were Right, I Was Wrong
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-07-03 18:35:13 EST
Dear Jonathan Ball,

When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text. There is one
sentence in the first paragraph which might be taken that way but the
principle of charity requires you to interpret it as an environmental
argument.

However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.

Now, is "axiomatisable" a real word, Mr. Clown?

Watch him snip the question, folks. This will be a real scream.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 18:43:26 EST
Rupert wrote:
> Dear Rudy Canoza,
>
> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.

Yes, it is. It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
reference below.


> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.

So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.

Rupert
2008-07-03 18:50:59 EST
On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Dear Rudy Canoza,
>
> > When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> > you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> > inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
>
> Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
> reference below.
>

No it's not, silly clown.

> > However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> > some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> > wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
>
> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.

I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded that you
had proved your point and congratulated you on winning. You were the
one who wanted to talk about it some more. Thanks for giving me
another good laugh this morning by comically snipping my
"axiomatisable" question just as I predicted. God help me, you're a
pathetic joke.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 18:56:08 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
>> Yes, it is. It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
>> reference below.
>>
>
> No it's not,

Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.


>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
>> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
>
> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded

You never did that, including never shutting up. You couldn't. You
don't have it in you to do that.

Rupert
2008-07-03 19:01:13 EST
On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
> >>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> >>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> >>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
> >> Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
> >> reference below.
>
> > No it's not,
>
> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
>

The principle of charity requires you to interpret it as an
environmental argument. You have no reply to this, just empty denial.

> >>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> >>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> >>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
> >> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
>
> > I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
>
> You never did that, including never shutting up.  You couldn't.  You
> don't have it in you to do that.

You're lying on both points as anyone can confirm by looking at the
public record. Have a nice day.

I can't believe you're doing this to yourself.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 19:28:52 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
>>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
>>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
>>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
>>>> Yes, it is. It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
>>>> reference below.
>>> No it's not,
>> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
>>
>
> The principle of charity

Is alien to you.


> requires you to interpret it as an
> environmental argument.

No, it doesn't. What absurd bullshit for you to say that. I would owe
the person making the statement charity, but you want me to be
charitable regarding *your* dishonest and politically motivated
interpretation of it. You're full of shit, rupie.


>>>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
>>>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
>>>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
>>>> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
>>> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
>> You never did that, including never shutting up. You couldn't. You
>> don't have it in you to do that.
>
> You're lying on both points

No, of course not.

Mr. Smartypants
2008-07-03 20:15:38 EST
On Jul 4, 9:01 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
> > >>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> > >>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> > >>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
> > >> Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
> > >> reference below.
>
> > > No it's not,
>
> > Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
>
> The principle of charity requires you to interpret it as an
> environmental argument. You have no reply to this, just empty denial.
>
> > >>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> > >>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> > >>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
> > >> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
>
> > > I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
>
> > You never did that, including never shutting up.  You couldn't.  You
> > don't have it in you to do that.
>
> You're lying on both points as anyone can confirm by looking at the
> public record. Have a nice day.
>
> I can't believe you're doing this to yourself.



It's one of those things that you see but can't believe is actually
happening.

You'll get used to it in dealing with Boobs. He does that sort of
thing to himself all the time.

Rupert
2008-07-03 23:08:59 EST
On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
> >>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> >>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> >>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
> >>>> Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
> >>>> reference below.
> >>> No it's not,
> >> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
>
> > The principle of charity
>
> Is alien to you.
>

I'd be interested to know how you would go about demonstrating that.

> > requires you to interpret it as an
> > environmental argument.
>
> No, it doesn't.  What absurd bullshit for you to say that.  I would owe
> the person making the statement charity, but you want me to be
> charitable regarding *your* dishonest and politically motivated
> interpretation of it.  You're full of shit, rupie.
>

You're a loon. This is just inane babble. There's nothing in the text
that Pearl posted to support your contention that anyone is making an
argument from inefficiency. There's one statement that might be
interpreted it that way, but the principle of charity requires you to
interpret it as an environmental argument. I've explained that enough
times.

> >>>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> >>>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> >>>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
> >>>> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
> >>> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
> >> You never did that, including never shutting up.  You couldn't.  You
> >> don't have it in you to do that.
>
> > You're lying on both points
>
> No, of course not.

Well, each person must examine the archives and judge for themselves.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 23:32:16 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
>>>>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
>>>>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
>>>>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
>>>>>> Yes, it is. It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
>>>>>> reference below.
>>>>> No it's not,
>>>> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
>>> The principle of charity
>> Is alien to you.
>>
>
> I'd be interested to know how you would go about demonstrating that.

It is self-evident.


>>> requires you to interpret it as an
>>> environmental argument.
>> No, it doesn't. What absurd bullshit for you to say that. I would owe
>> the person making the statement charity, but you want me to be
>> charitable regarding *your* dishonest and politically motivated
>> interpretation of it. You're full of shit, rupie.
>>
>
> You're a loon.

No. You're a passive fruit.


>>>>>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
>>>>>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
>>>>>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
>>>>>> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
>>>>> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
>>>> You never did that, including never shutting up. You couldn't. You
>>>> don't have it in you to do that.
>>> You're lying on both points
>> No, of course not.
>
> Well,

No lying.

Rupert
2008-07-04 01:02:41 EST
On Jul 3, 8:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 4, 6:56 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 4, 6:43 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Rudy Canoza,
> >>>>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
> >>>>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
> >>>>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
> >>>>>> Yes, it is.  It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
> >>>>>> reference below.
> >>>>> No it's not,
> >>>> Yes, it most certainly is, stupid pathetic lying fuck.
> >>> The principle of charity
> >> Is alien to you.
>
> > I'd be interested to know how you would go about demonstrating that.
>
> It is self-evident.
>

Many things appear self-evident to you, such as this strange idea you
have that I'm not laughing.

> >>> requires you to interpret it as an
> >>> environmental argument.
> >> No, it doesn't.  What absurd bullshit for you to say that.  I would owe
> >> the person making the statement charity, but you want me to be
> >> charitable regarding *your* dishonest and politically motivated
> >> interpretation of it.  You're full of shit, rupie.
>
> > You're a loon.
>
> No.  You're a passive fruit.
>
> >>>>>>> However, you have recently demonstrated by means of citations that
> >>>>>>> some people make this argument. I believed that no-one did. I was
> >>>>>>> wrong. You were right. You have proved your point. Well done.
> >>>>>> So you can shut the fuck up on the thread now, asswipe.
> >>>>> I did shut up once I had frankly and forthrightly conceded
> >>>> You never did that, including never shutting up.  You couldn't.  You
> >>>> don't have it in you to do that.
> >>> You're lying on both points
> >> No, of course not.
>
> > Well,
>
> No lying.

The first thing I wrote was "Yes, you have proved your point,
congratulations on winning for a change". That sounds like a frank and
forthright concession to me. We then went on to argue the point for a
little while about whether the stuff Pearl had posted contained an
inefficiency argument, then I moved on to other topics. So, at that
point, I did "shut up". Then you started crowing about how I had
"slunk away", and then you started talking very funny stuff about how
I hadn't conceded properly and I wasn't real man. Very funny, that, in
the context of a continued absence of a retraction of your claim that
"axiomatisable" isn't a real word. I take it you still think it's not
a real word, is that right? I wonder why you don't answer. It wouldn't
be cowardice, would it? So, anyway, you started talking all this funny
stuff, and so the fun went on. I laughed a lot this morning, it was a
new all-time high for getting good belly laughs out of good old
Jonathan Ball.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron